Permanently Deleted
This is, and always will be, the only content I will consume by the Podcaster Known As Virgil Texas. I love this piece hahahaha
That article is a fucking masterpiece. The first time I read it, I had never heard of chapo and I had to struggle to finish it because I was laughing so hard.
Now everything is just sad because hellworld
Honestly, same exactly experience hahaha except I still find it pretty funny, tbh. But more in a 'look at this hero, I guess I should probably be doing this too' sort of way lmao
I mean yeah, everytime I read it I get a chuckle out of it. I'd love to start doing the same, but I'm not super great at coming up with stuff off the top of my head to dunk on people. The way I get around that is building up a repository of lines and shit to sort through when I'm looking for something.
But the more of us infiltrating into chud spaces, the better. It'd be hilarious if we could eventually get admin and re-imagine the group into something more appropriate.
Haha it feels like the closest thing to a coup I'll do in my sad, terminally-online lifetime lmao. Maybe someday we'll run organized brigades out of the lemmy fediverse and reeducate chuds hahaha .
Oh, you're right, I'm so sorry. Thank you for checking my citations.
If any of you reading this have any questions, criticism or feedback, be sure to email them to him!
They generally don’t have infighting [...] dissenters over even trivial things are treated poorly
I found that contradictory at first, but ... does this mean the only reason they don't have infighting is that they all avoid subjects that are controversial within the group? Because that would be in line with what i've seen so far - that right unity is just a flimsy facade and that such groups could easily be split if you give them a wedge subject they can't avoid / ignore.
They don't have infighting because the moment someone disagrees on even a minor thing they don't have a "struggle session" over it, they just kick/drive them out.
The chud worldview conflates weakness, poorness, being low in the kyriarchy, and moral failing/degeneracy. They basically all agree on this. The biggest structural difference is a split between "we should act morally, and let the degenerates get what's coming to them" and "we must act to protect ourselves from the degenerates." You might be able to manufacture some sort of argument there.
There's also the exact structure of the kyriarchy, but I don't really think you're going to get a community-splitting argument out of who's more inferior, a black person or a trans person. (They do argue about that stuff though.)
No, but you can (and I have) caused rifts in these communities over whether certain European nationalities count as white.
Italian and Irish rightists don't consider each other white. Anglo rightists don't consider Spaniards white. German rightists don't consider Slavs white, and Slavic rightists don't consider Greeks white.
You can create a big circle of hatred where they're all calling each other the n word.
It's also extremely easy to get random chuds accused of being Muslims.
Huh! I take it you're European? In the US the chuds view Europe as much more united than they are.
But I've also usually tried with Slavs, since they're the most recently white, or Arabs, since they're the most recent to lose whiteness. So maybe that's just the wrong groups to try.
American, but in an area with a lot of militant rightists.
You can overhear them at the bars arguing over whether Italians are white. It's their favorite thing to talk about and there are almost no Italians around here.
This is why all the meme italyposting in the chapo community was really unsettling to me when I first saw it
Could you expand a bit maybe? I genuinely dont understand the thought process behind this.
Pretty much every European nationality has its own self centered definition of "white".
Really, you're just creating arguments over which of these absurd definitions is the real one.
How, I can't even comprehend how someone could be this hateful/stupid.
Humans have been prejudiced against eachother for as long as there've been humans, but it's always been along much smaller ethnic groups than what we're used to today. The modern idea of grouping loads of ethnicities into races (seven races for seven continents) traces back to the 1600s, a mix of the Spanish being very concerned about who did and did not have Moorish heritage, and everyone involved in the Atlantic slave trade needing a justification for their atrocities. The justification for the groupings themselves changed over time too, for example climate-based race (people from hot climates are strong but idle and stupid and need people from cool climates to guide them) being a popular one, until with the discovery of genetics it settled on a bogus version of that, which it remains until today.
These groupings are created to justify systems of exploitation, so they're pretty flexible. When the conditions that say who can be exploited change, so do the races. So, in the US, Irish and Italians were considered non-white (though the Irish are pale-skinned enough that they'd be called out separately; "No N*****s or Irish" signs), Slavs were considered Asian until the 1920s, and (light-skinned) Arabs were considered white until the 2000s, then lost their white status. I thought northern Asians were going to be next to gain whiteness, but lately the chuds I keep tabs on are trying to push for Mexicans getting it (not that they phrase it in these terms).
So what HKBFG is doing is trying to reopen old splits in who was considered white.
I can't even imagine the amount of brain worms you'd need to belive this sort of thing.
You probably believe it to some extent!
The first thing we notice when we describe a person is their race. It might be tempting to justify that with skin color being so visible (skin does cover the whole body), but "Black" and "Indian" are still separate words. These socially constructed groupings of ethnicities run very deep.
As the saying goes, "I'm not racist, but I am the product of a racist society."
In my experience, yes. They don't discuss things that isn't unanimous among their peer group... basically: less immigration, lower taxes, more patriotism.
Way easier to come to a consensus around those things than actually changing concrete things that may have 5/10/20 different ways to fix things, like is the case among our peer group.
that right unity is just a flimsy facade and that such groups could easily be split if you give them a wedge subject they can’t avoid / ignore.
Such as? You could wrap class grievances (against your boss, for example) in right-wing drivel pretty seamlessly, and that could (a) drive a wedge between the free market capitalism nerds and the people who are just there because they're poor and racist, and (b) at least create some potential for those who leave to be receptive to leftist ideas. It might also sow the seeds for deprogramming the Trump cult of personality. There are already people who say they don't like Trump personally but they like what he does, and throwing an "eat the rich" spin can probably sneak by without raising too much suspicion.
Oh fuck that's a great one. Probably could throw in some Catholic/Protestant catfighting into the mix as well.
Somebody liked your post so much that your post has been awarded ChapoChat Gold™
Excellent idea!
Also, being inside a white-supremacist group gives you some opportunities to pull people out. Two of the tricks I use over on 4chan:
-
Give correct explanations of left-wing/feminist views while sneering at said views. Make the views look good, but yourself on the chuds' side, and yourself look awful. (Correct explanation of the kyriarchy and how it keeps people down, which is a good thing, because fuck equality, I want to be on top)
-
Look for newbie-nazis looking for advice on how to pull themselves slightly further in (inferior culture -> inferior people -> we need to look out for our race -> races need to keep to themselves -> we need to deport other races -> that's too hard lets just kill them), and instead give them the most direct and awful version possible (skip to the genocide). This scares the newbies off, and they have a chance of landing in a leftwing pipeline instead.
On 4chan you can do both because it's anonymous. You'd probably need separate accounts for this to work in spaces with names. I'd lean towards just using the first one, but I'm not an expert on facebook nazis.
Look for newbie-nazis looking for advice on how to pull themselves slightly further in (inferior culture -> inferior people -> we need to look out for our race -> races need to keep to themselves -> we need to deport other races -> that’s too hard lets just kill them), and instead give them the most direct and awful version possible (skip to the genocide).
Speaking of newbie-Nazis, /r/Libertarian is a great place to scare them away from going full-on fascist. The libertarian-to-fascist pipeline is real, the community is large enough to get some bang for your posting buck, it's easy and fun to dunk on a joke ideology, and there's a fairly established subgroup of posters there who are either on the left or at least sympathetic to it. Plus, they don't ban you even if you quote Marx, so you don't have to bother too much with sneaking around. You can just openly describe how hellish a libertarian utopia would be (your "skip to the genocide" strategy).
The legitimate ideological openness of that sub also facilitates your first point, but even more directly: you can just give a leftist alternative and describe how it's good; you don't even need to wrap it in a chud veneer. Sometimes an easy, clearly-better alternative is the most convincing argument against something.
I've had a lot of luck directly recruiting libertarians, they're actually the group I've had the most success with. You can usually get them to entertain the difference between private property and personal property, and if you spend a couple months paying attention to that then suddenly you're a socialist. And explaining the difference between modern unions and historic radical unions (casting all anti-union propaganda as the fault of modern unions being small) works super well on libertarian tech-bros.
Yeah, definitely. And a lot of them are just contrarian, which I think is part of why the "well acktshually it's modern unions that suck" shtick works so well on them.
I've just stopped talking about private property at all except when someone specifically uses it. I usually just say "private ownership of the shit we need to make shit". I guess it probably depends who you're talking about.
Oh yeah, don't bother trying to actually call it "private property" unless the person you're talking to is already to the left of Bernie Sanders. Definitely need workarounds for terminology.
I’ve had a lot of luck directly recruiting libertarians, they’re actually the group I’ve had the most success with.
They're on the upper end of the pipeline to fascism, which makes them among the easiest to turn away.
You can usually get them to entertain the difference between private property and personal property, and if you spend a couple months paying attention to that then suddenly you’re a socialist.
This is a good entry point. Two other ones I've had luck with are:
- The sub is focused on capitalism far more run-of-the-mill conservative subs (and certainly more than white nationalist groups), so critiquing the places where capitalism fails most egregiously fits in pretty naturally. You don't have to be the "but the real problem, of course, is capitalism" guy all the time because they're discussing it so fucking much already.
- They spend a lot of time re-litigating whether we need public schools or public courts (lol) and there are just overwhelmingly good arguments for all of that stuff and more. You get lots of space to put those arguments out there, so anyone dipping their toes in and thinking "my public school wasn't great; maybe we should just privatize all of this" can get connected with why that's a horrible idea.
Besides derailing fascist pipelines, there's also the benefit of sharpening your own critiques of capitalism (and your own alternative solutions).
Plus Libertarians have already somewhat revolted against the neoliberal world order (even if they basically agree with all of the basic principles), so they're more open to structural critiques than liberals are.
This... I think this is what got me. Even in the Communist Manifesto, which is not good at teaching theory, it seemed obvious what Marx was getting at. I had a "why hadn't anybody told me this yet!?" moment.
They’re on the upper end of the pipeline to fascism, which makes them among the easiest to turn away.
Disagree actually. I've had a lot more success with libertarians than I have had with liberals. (I've also had more luck with chuds than liberals.)
Though I've spent no time on /r/libertarian. Most of the libertarians I talk to are on Hacker News.
I suppose I don't see liberals as being on any sort of pipeline to fascism in the first place. The liberals I know are largely in agreement with leftists on the danger of America's proto-fascist elements (e.g., militarized police and mass incarceration); they just want shitty, half-assed reformist solutions and are reflexively (but not militantly) pro-capitalist. If they object to a policy like Medicare for All, it's for some complex macroeconomic budgeting reason they don't really understand, not because they genuinely despise people at the bottom rungs of society. I don't see them as a few nudges away from supporting an ethnostate.
I do see many libertarians as a few nudges away from supporting an ethnostate; that's why I view them on a pipeline to fascism. Many of them do genuinely despise anyone at the bottom rungs of society, and at best they're oblivious to all the racial coding that's built into that. If left in a seamless container of like-minded thinkers, they're the type who would easily conclude that anyone who's poor should just be left to die, and from there it's only a short hop to "and if they get in my way at all I have the right to kill them."
As shitty as liberals are they generally have a level of fundamental human decency that libertarians either don't have (these folks are unreachable) or need to be reminded of.
Ooph, Hacker News, you're doing the Lords work there. It's neolib central with a dash of libertarian Randism.
I have the exact opposite experience of talking to libertarians unfortunately. It gives me some hope that you’ve had some success with them though.
The libertarians I deal with are those weird ones that overly criticize “liberals” and leftists at the drop of a dime but shrivel up and piss themselves when I deconstruct IDW bullshit or mildly push back reactionary rhetoric. These two people revolve their anti-govt attitude around George Orwell (one is obsessed with 1984 and nothing else), Ayn Rand and Thomas Sowell. Throw in the typical IDW guy videos and they become this impenetrable wall of libertarian horseshit that is almost impossible to deconstruct.
I’m not really even trying to “recruit” or convert any of them. I just get caught up in being an online guy (I mean we’re posting here ffs lol) and sometimes can’t help but fight back against the bullshit.
I probably need a new approach but god damn it is tiring
Sucks.
I guess my advice would be to try to agree with them about things being Orwellian, then immediately pivot into complaining about corporations and how the government is too beholden to them to do anything about it. Credit scores, Google/Facebook having eyes everywhere, every website runs on AWS, that sort of thing. If you really get them going then try to talk about how your boss has his job because of nepotism and you and your coworkers don't have a say in getting rid of him, but that's pretty advanced.
Yea.. honestly, in most people's day-to-day lives, assuming they aren't actively out protesting or organizing in leftist spaces, private corporations are way more Orwellian than the government. Both of the main mobile OS's are designed to funnel shit loads of info about you to private entities with no accountability, and there is virtually 0 competition to those two.
I’ve tried appealing to the Orwellian nature of his obsession and I end up scratching my head wondering if he has even read 1984 at all.
He unironically linked a Tommy Robinson Parler post cheering on the feds “stickin’ it to those antifas” in his Discord channel “2-minutes-of-hate”. I simply made the comment that the feds sweeping up protestors seems a bit authoritarian and Big Brother would be pleased. It actually shocked me that he wanted to debate the definition of authoritarianism and asked to what degree is this authoritarian to illicit my comment.
I kept the topic of the federal govt doing heinous as much as I could but it eventually got derailed cuz he would wouldn’t stop whining about how he was the fool and I know everything.
Like how do you deal with this level of brainworms lmao.
This person might actually be a chud trying to pose as a libertarian to pull them over.
Or yeah, worms.
I used to be a white supremacist I’m all too familiar with the bullshit they pull especially when it comes to the libertarians. I wouldn’t even waste my time with him if I didn’t see anything worth fighting for. I only care enough to even talk and vent about it here because of that fact.
My short term goal with this fella is to break down the IDW shit. I just haven’t found something that clicked.
they're further along the pipeline than the newbies being described. they've already started swallowing the first few layers of propaganda. the shock doctrine approach above of just like calling for genocide way before they're ready to hear it or making them sit with the discomfort of illiberal feelings (always from a source that's "just like them") will land better.
I suppose this is where I came from. Though, I never thought ill of women, POC, or LGBT+ so maybe I was just always a socialist and didn't have the right 'language' for it.
Thinking ill of women, POC, and LGBT+ people isn't really in the "pitch" of libertarianism. But...
-
They're the first groups that suffer under a libertarian ideal, so a certain degree of callousness towards them is required to stay libertarian if you're not completely head-in-the-sand about it
-
Libertarianism is often used as a cover for stealth chuddery
-
I agree on /r/Libertarian. The mods are mostly chuds, but there are a lot of debate nerds on there who have just legitimately never heard leftist ideas explained and think the left's entire philosophy is just taking guns or SJW's, rather than workers issues.
I've actually had a lot of success even in main subs straight up quoting Marx and Lenin verbatim and just changing words like "bourgeoisie" to "financial class" and just leaving the name off until somebody asks.
Nope! I don't screenshot and these things naturally disappear after a while. I've been meaning to sponsor a community raid at some point, so I'll make sure to get examples when doing that.
I've actually seen a lot less opportunity for #2 on /pol/ for the last several months; there's a lot fewer newbie-nazis.
Here's a post I did just now that I'm pretty happy with though (this is more of a #3 - stating leftist views in a way palatable to chuds). Unfortunately I didn't manage to get first response, so it's pretty unlikely to draw serious attention. (The OP is confused because racism doesn't explain animosity between Greece and Turkey, which of course it doesn't, because racism is just something people made up 400 years ago, and most prejudice historically was very local. But I can't just say that without them deciding I'm an SJW and ignoring me.)
-
I've infiltrated online white nationalist communities in the past and it was very easy. Not sure about the ones that do irl meetings/events but the ones that are only online are easy to get into. I might have a few alt accounts that are still in those communities.
Yeah I've been through the pipeline myself and it basically all started with what I thought at the time was innocent shitposting. I never got into irl activism but I probably would have if the groups I was in had any irl activities. After reconnecting with reality, I made some alt accounts to infiltrate and found that they had not improved their vetting at all since I had first joined (about a year or two prior).
Dangit, aren't we also mostly just shitposting (like @Luciferase says they're doing in a comrade comment) and might have a hard time when we need to organize (which was like... a decade...two...three ago)?
You wrote 'chads' instead of 'chuds' in the last paragraph.
But I like it, very good post.
Use thispersondoesnotexist.com for a picture so you don't accidentally use a good person's pictures.
many people in these militia groups use their real names and real photos
Thoughts on doxing these assholes? I see a lot of pros: it creates that "are we being infiltrated" paranoia that disrupts the pipeline, it potentially upends the lives of some Nazis (lol), if one of them is in a position of power getting them fired is even better, it might force some of the more active members/leaders off the platform or out of fascist spaces altogether, and (I know this is a stretch, but) it might serve as a wake-up call to the target.
On the negative side, it could radicalize the target further. Maybe this isn't a pure negative (most will still be too chickenshit to do anything real with their radicalization, and if it blows up a fascist space that might be a net gain), but it's still worth considering.
Elle Reeve, for VICE, made a pulitzer prize winning 20-min documentary about Charlottesville. Pretty big deal for a nobody to win a pulitzer for a VICE doc.
She also made a follow-up, a 'Where Are They Now?' one-year-later doc about the white supremacists.
The overall theme was 'they all got doxed, lost their jobs, friends, had their lives ruined, and now they're not active white supremacists anymore'.
Check out the first doc, it's really good. But the second doc really proves that deplatforming and naming and shaming really, really works; this is why I mention all of this, of course.
Bonus: Both docs heavily feature everyone's favourite Crying Nazi lmao
Doc 1: Charlottesville: Race and Terror
Doc 2: A year after Charlottesville, the alt-right is in shambles
A collection of Elle Reeve's work for VICE, which focuses largely on the alt-right and antifa, and is super based. Afaik, she now does occasional correspondence for CNN, be that what it may.
The overall theme was ‘they all got doxed, lost their jobs, friends, had their lives ruined, and now they’re not active white supremacists anymore’.
I want to believe, but I can also see them just putting on a good show for the cameras and in reality just getting more covert with their actions. Either way, ruining fascist lives is cool and good and at least puts a giant red flag out there that will hopefully keep them out of positions of power in the future.
Ya. I mean, the crying nazi was hilarious. He was, basically, crying about having lost his online community lmao so sad. Of course, you’re right, a persecution complex is a cornerstone of rightwing ideology, so it could easily be for show. He’s literally called The Crying Nazi, after all hahaha
The one inspiring piece though, which was undeniable, was the alt-right speaking tours. After Charlottesville, antifa basically direct-action blocked alti-right speaking events in halls and universities across the country. Deplatforming them totally took the wind out of their sails and the movement, to some degree, died out from that.
Either way, yes, fascists deserve to see consequences for their beliefs, and painting them in their own colours does have benefits, for sure. :af-heart:
I’d keep it concentrated on the leaders (and after that, people who make open calls for violence), both to help break apart the group but also to avoiding further radicalizing folks who may have just stumbled in there, as you alluded to.
Good strategy.
This actually doesn't work, the best thing you can do is screenshot the image. Rotating it is still a good idea though, as some shittier reverse image search bots just locate and match coloured pixels.
Hell yeah gonna do this. I spend too much time on Facebook provoking these dumbasses in groups like BOYCOTT NASCAR for fun anyways lol.
You thought it was just you fucking around but turns out it was just an extended training montage
So when do we create a specific space to organize ourself to do that. We won't be able to do anything if we are not organized.
luv u. Maybe make an encrypted group chat or smthg. I don't know if doxxing or infiltration is really a threat in that if people don't say which group exactly they are COINTELPRO'ing , nothing of vaue should be communicated.
Discord is 100% transparent and unencrypted. Setting up a Matrix server is not hard.
I actually used to be an admin of a matrix instance, but too lazy to do it again. I can help someone set up one tho.
The quickest way to set up a matrix room is to go through element.io Element is still hosting the server (which is in the UK), but that will at least get you started.
I just wrote out a long reply, then hit a button and the thread updated so I lost it. The short answer is yes. It is just like Discord but with encryption that you can take up and move where you want; so an outside entity or company cannot come along and effortlessly see what you are doing.
I've been working on trying to put together a system setup for protest monitoring and live opsec and osint - this is definitely something we should be doing. Thanks comrade!
